Are some of the basic elements of medieval combat too weak in D&D?

[Andor]

Crikey... thread necromancy to 1978!

*snort* Ha!

Yeah this debate has been around since the first d20 was carved out of mountain rock by Gary himself with a chisel.

Yes to both, but it's always been well known.

3e was an improvement, esp for mounted combat with many powerful feats and some lasses to buff mounts up to surviveable levels. In fact one of the only 3rd party books I bought for 3e was a supplement for horses.

Most game systems underrate shields. Having fought against people using them in SCA combat, yeah, they should be much more effective than they are. *shrug* This is a game system where charaters can have enough hit points to dive off of Angel Falls for fun. Shields are not at the top of my worry list.

 

[Hussar]

Put me in the camp that wishes 3e sword and board fighters got a LOT more loving. And, I wants me a bec-du-corbin as well.

There's a reason shields were used on pretty much every battlefield from about 5000 BC onwards. They work extremely well. Not just as a defensive item, but offensive as well. One thing I did in 3e was double shield bonuses and allow Combat Expertise to trade 2 for 1 if you used a shield. Worked pretty well.

 

[S'mon]

Y'all know that the spread of full plate armour caused shields to fall out of use, right? Although longswords pierce as well as slash, usually one-handed weapons didn't do enough damage to penetrate full plate. Specialised penetrator weapons like 2-handed lucerne hammers were developed, and shields fell into disuse.

If anything, shields are overpowered in D&D when matched with heavy armour; because the AC bonuses stack. Likewise they're underpowered on unarmoured characters.

Shield + heavy armour doesn't actually give a 5%/10% defense bonus. A heavy shield that changes '18 to hit' to '20 to hit' makes you 1/3 as likely to be hit, a +200% boost in real defense - you will last 3 times as long in combat.

The problem is D&D's level of abstraction. If shield & armour were considered separately (shield gives cover, armour reduces damage) you'd get a much more realistic effect.

 

[Ydars]

It was actually double mail that allowed fighters to stop using shields and focus on two handed weapons; with single mail, no shield= dead fighter. Two handed weapons then stimulated armour makers to produce plate to counter the increased power of weapons like the longsword (which historically was always used double handed). Ironically, the weapon most plate-armour wearers would fear is the rondel dagger; a dagger with a very stiff blade with a triangular cross section. The best tactic, advocated in medieval fight-books of the time, was to trip the plate wearer with either grappling or a polearm or longsword (you reversed the longsword and used the hilt to hook behind the knee or ankle) and then, once they were on the floor, drive a rondel through a joint or the visor. Having said this, once you had a knight down, it was time to think about ransom not killing; such were the economics of the day.

Yet double mail and plate were not common equipment on any battlefield and most people would not have had access to them; they were too expensive. Also, knights in plate frequently used shields because a lance can penetrate full plate if your opponent is galloping towards you on a horse. The shield was an essential part of defence against this. So sword and shield was very important and the bottom line is most of a trained fighter's defence came from his shield, not from armour, unless he had plate. Parrying is another misconception; most medieval blades were not used for parrying much; you blocked with a shield or buckler and then this opened your opponent to a counter with your sword.

The sword and shield combination was also essential for lightly armoured soldiers for one very important reason; if you don't have metal gauntlets then you MUST have a bucker that constantly covers your sword hand or else it will be cut off as soon as you attack with your sword; the defender simply targets your exposed arm/hand. There is a special sword and buckler style that was used from 11th to 18th century where the buckler hand hovers over the sword hand except when shield bashing and during some guards and is illustrated in a document called I33 from the Tower of London; odd that the buckler was the MOST common shield to bash with and yet you can't do it in 3E D&D.

You could make a really good combat system from historical martial fight-book moves and it wouldn't feel that different to 3E combat in many ways; just the emphasis on sword and board.

 

[mmadsen]

Because D&D is a fantasy game, rooted in fantasy literature.

Yes, D&D is a fantasy game, rooted in fantasy literature, but that fantasy literature is itself rooted in medieval romances and accounts of ancient warfare.

At any rate, if you wanted to mimic fantasy literature, you'd create a system where Bard could kill Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas could kill a fell beast in the dark with a single arrow, a woman and a hobbit could kill the Witch-King of Angmar with a stab and a slash, Conan could brain a man with a joint of meat or strangle him with his bare hands yet be afraid of a few archers surrounding him, etc.

D&D combat isn't very well grounded in fantasy literature.

 

[GlaziusF]

I've always wondered why D&D handles mounted combat and shields so weakly in relation to their historical capabilities.

Because when you're fighting an ogre where you and your horse only come up to his knee and his ranged weapon is a boulder, mounted combat and shields are pretty weak?

 

[Umbran]

The sword and shield combination was also essential for lightly armoured soldiers for one very important reason; if you don't have metal gauntlets then you MUST have a bucker that constantly covers your sword hand or else it will be cut off as soon as you attack with your sword; the defender simply targets your exposed arm/hand. There is a special sword and buckler style that was used from 11th to 18th century where the buckler hand hovers over the sword hand except when shield bashing and during some guards and is illustrated in a document called I33 from the Tower of London; odd that the buckler was the MOST common shield to bash with and yet you can't do it in 3E D&D.

One style in one book does not a MUST make. What you describe sounds rather like what I see in some forms of recreation fencing - it is not generally used in the heavy-armor fighting I have seen.

Generally speaking, the strike against the arm/hand you mention is not easy - at the time you can target his arm or hand, his weapon is leading and coming at you - you have to get around the weapon to get at the arm, and trying to do so generally means you are open to getting hit with the weapon.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I've always wondered why D&D handles mounted combat [. . .] so weakly in relation to their historical capabilities.

My current campaign is a sort of historical fantasy, set in 1198. The chevalier class I built for the campaign (classic Crusades-era mounted knight) really wants to fight from horseback--and that's even after I worked pretty hard to tone down the degree to which being on horseback is integral to his training and fighting style.

The problem is, one guy fighting from horseback isn't really compatible with most RPG adventuring encounters, nor with the ensemble cast approach that works best in D&D and most RPGs. I can keep it balanced out in my own campaign, with hand-tuned classes and encounters and themes that keep the specific characters in mind, but not everyone would have the same experience in a typical D&D milieu.

So it's like so many other issues: D&D (rightfully) balances simulation against a game experience that's the most fun most of the time. On this issue, the simulation direction might not serve D&D well--but as my own example shows, YMMV, and you can always alter the game to fit your own desires and expectations.

 

[Clavis]

The weakness of shields in every edition of D&D has always bugged me. Shields were incredibly useful in combat pre-gunpowder. Warriors in many cultures preferred not to wear armor at all, or very light armor, and rely on the defensive ability of a shield.

To simulate the power of the shield, I would suggest allowing those skilled in its use to have a chance to completely block one attack per round. Additionally, those using a wooden shield should have an initiative advantage over opponents using edged or piercing weapons. Anyone who has ever taken an axe to wood will realize why medieval warriors often preferred wooden shields - they make an enemy's weapon stick in the wood, allowing you to strike while they extract their blade from your shield.

And no, a katana can't cut through a wooden shield they way it (or any well-made sword in fact) can cut through a compact piece of bamboo.

 

[mmadsen]

If anything, shields are overpowered in D&D when matched with heavy armour; because the AC bonuses stack. Likewise they're underpowered on unarmoured characters.

Shield + heavy armour doesn't actually give a 5%/10% defense bonus. A heavy shield that changes '18 to hit' to '20 to hit' makes you 1/3 as likely to be hit, a +200% boost in real defense - you will last 3 times as long in combat.

Exactly.

The problem is D&D's level of abstraction. If shield & armour were considered separately (shield gives cover, armour reduces damage) you'd get a much more realistic effect.

I wouldn't say the problem is D&D's level of abstraction; it's the abstraction they chose. Anyway, a Reflex Defense, which benefits from a shield, to avoid being hit, combined with a Fortitude Defense, which benefits from armor, to avoid being seriously hurt, would better reflect real combat -- and hit points could modify either roll, to represent added effort, fate, etc.